VA Governor Backs Down on Invasive Ultrasound, but the Bill Still Stinks

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has issued this press release, backing down on the trans-vaginal ultrasound issue, and calling for amendments to Virginia’s proposed “informed consent” law stating that invasive procedures are not mandated.

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

Gov. McDonnell says, “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.”

But why does it matter whether the procedure is invasive or not? The state has absolutely no business mandating any kind of unnecessary medical procedure, and the very fact that this is even being considered is incredibly offensive.

The reason why McDonnell is now willing to back off on trans-vaginal ultrasounds is because there are still plenty of other slut-shaming provisions in the bill. If it passes, the anti-choice cavemen still come out ahead.

For example, the bill also says that if a pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from a clinic, the mandatory ultrasound must be performed at least two hours before the abortion, to give plenty of time for mental suffering to be inflicted.

If it isn’t clear by now, I have no respect at all for these 17th century religious fanatics or the regressive laws they’re forcing on American women. This bill is an abomination, and should still be protested by anyone who gives a damn about women’s rights.

I said downstairs that McDonnell will get slammed for backing out of this if he ever seeks high office from the right to clarify. Still say that's true even though as you point out, most of the meat of the bill is still in. And I will again repeat this, McDonnell is no moderate conservative. He may not foam at the mouth like AG Cuccinelli but he's equally nuts.

Working hard to win the coveted "A**hole Vote"....
In seriousness though, it's scary to realize that so many people holding office across the nation hold such loathsome, bass-ackward views in this day and age...

I said downstairs that McDonnell will get slammed for backing out of this if he ever seeks high office from the right to clarify. Still say that's true even though as you point out, most of the meat of the bill is still in. And I will again repeat this, McDonnell is no moderate conservative. He may not foam at the mouth like AG Cuccinelli but he's equally nuts.

McDonnell's taking the most politically expedient course, calling for amendments to the most visible bit of the bill while leaving the meat intact. That way he tells female voters "I stopped them from wanding you!" while telling the crazies "I still made it a lot fucking harder to get an abortion!"

Doesn't change a damn thing about the intent of the bill. It is still there and if there was not an uproar the bill would have gone through. They are just testing the waters and nothing has changed. The only change will be when people vote them out. I also have not an ounce of respect for the self serving pricks who push this legislation and those who support them.

But why does it matter whether the procedure is invasive or not? The state has absolutely no business mandating any kind of medical procedure, and the very fact that this is even being considered is incredibly offensive.

The state mandates vaccinations, for public health purposes, and anti-vaxxers are more than willing and do use this kind of line of thought to claim that the government has no right to force the vaccination of children.

There are legitimate reasons to mandate certain medical procedures - vaccinations being one, blood tests for genetic disorders being another. But the procedures being considered here should be left to the doctor's discretion in consultation with the patient.

The former Alaskan governor reportedly made the comment during the 2008 presidential campaign as aides to John McCain, the Republican candidate, tried to bring his surprise choice as running mate up to speed on foreign affairs.
Mrs Palin's confusion emerged during a coaching session with Steve Schmidt, a McCain adviser who asked her what she would do if Britain began to waver in its commitment to the Iraq war.

In one of the many rambling responses that eroded her credibility, Mrs Palin reportedly replied she would ''continue to have an open dialogue'' with the Queen. A horrified Mr Schmidt informed her the prime minister, then Gordon Brown, would be responsible for the decision. She also mistakenly believed Saddam Hussein ordered the September 11 attacks.

Agreed. They're pursuing this kind of policy because it's a collateral attack on Roe v. Wade and the ability of women to obtain abortions. It's all in the quest to throw roadblocks up that may yet hold up in courts across the country that further restrict access to abortions.

Dana Loesch spewing vitriol at me again:
...
Amazing how many progressive men use the topic of ultrasounds to act as creepy peepers into women's lady business.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 22, 2012

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

There's an old "joke" about gynecologists, that the only reason they went into that field was it was the only way they'd see that part of the women.

I'm guessing she's riffing on that theme. Not defending it, just trying to comprehend it.

Dana should have watched "Morning Joe" earlier today. Joe said that he watched and listened to a group of Republican, pro life women, including his wife, discuss how the GOP has gone over a cliff on social issues. The vaginal probe thing in Virgina was apparently brought up, and it seriously creeped them out, along with basically everything Santorum has said in the last two months.

Well, you're also assuming this hasn't all just been political theatre for the benefit of Gov. McDonnell.

I assume nothing, because I pretty much know that this was all planned ahead. McDonnell conveniently expresses "concern" over the bill and calls for an amendment that the legislature already has in waiting to slap on the bill like a fig leaf, then ram the bill through before folks can stop and say "Hey wait, what about the rest of this shit?"

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

It's directed at me - she's continuing to spread a smear that she started last week, that I'm a "pervert." Every time she tweets something like that, it gets immediately retweeted by dozens of wingnut goons.

Look, OK, I'm the first to admit (And show my displeasure) at the fact that a lot of so called progressive men aren't actually all that progressive in how they think of and treat women.

That being said, I have no idea what the hell she's attempting to say here. I can't even start to speculate because of how nonsensical this statement is. Just trying to puzzle it out makes my head hurt.

It's not easy overcoming years of paternal indoctrination. Even those of us who know acting as if women are the weaker gender, the less capable gender, the less decisive gender catch ourselves being stupid. It takes a lot of discipline to notice and reverse highly ingrained habits.

Luckily, most of us in the old guard will die off and the younger generations should be increasingly better at it. (unless the maniacal right takes over.)

Like I said, this was all a bit of political theater for the rubes, something to serve as a fig leaf until the bill could get through the House. There's still the chance it will die in the Senate, but if not, then there's no doubt McDonnell will sign it now.

Bastard didn't "back down" from anything, he just moved the goalposts.

It's directed at me - she's continuing to spread a smear that she started last week, that I'm a "pervert." Every time she tweets something like that, it gets immediately retweeted by dozens of wingnut goons.

See, that's the thing. I get she's attacking you. But even given that, I just cannot fathom the supposed reasoning behind the comment. It's just such a massive non sequitur.

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

My guess is that it is a continued idiotic reference to Charles being in her words a "pervert" by suggesting that the picture Charles has used a few times now on this topic is somehow perverted or sexualized. Its basically an image from a medical textbook I am guessing with a word or two changed (appropriately enough) by Charles or someone else . Wingnuts now believe that medical textbooks are perverted. I suppose a wand peaking behind a fig leaf may have been more appropriate in her virgin eyes.
This woman is showing increasingly that she is suffering from a derangement not unlike the shrieking harpy. She is so angry over Charles' rightly pointing out her insanity that she responds with bizarre rantings.

Because if there's one thing that really turns me on, it's textbook images of an object shoved up a...OK, wait, maybe that's a bad example.
/

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

I imagine what we'll see is Newt and Santorum taking turns beating Romney's head in, while Paul stands to the side and once again reminds us of how "evil" the Fed is.

I just can't figure out what these guys are angry about half the time anymore.

To be honest, I am not sure they can either. I find sometimes that the entire blogosphere is rife with ad hominem attacks that distract from the issues. I have on occasion even thought that of Charles, though I believe his is far less responsible than others, and that his comments are usually topical and relevant. I sometimes forget that for the writers, these are often personal pages, notwithstanding they are public in nature. I tend to gloss over many of the posts about Geller, Dana, and Derp, and Breitbart. I just get tired of it. Not that Charles is wrong, just that its almost become like a fight in high school that the rest of us sit around and watch. When one of the participants in that fight is a complete moron, as apparently is the case with Ms. Loesch, it deteriorates rather quickly. Apparently her only beef with Charles is that he is a pervert. She has never substantiated that claim in any way but it doesn't stop her from using it in every tweet.

To be honest, I am not sure they can either. I find sometimes that the entire blogosphere is rife with ad hominem attacks that distract from the issues. I have on occasion even thought that of Charles, though I believe his is far less responsible than others, and that his comments are usually topical and relevant. I sometimes forget that for the writers, these are often personal pages, notwithstanding they are public in nature. I tend to gloss over many of the posts about Geller, Dana, and Derp, and Breitbart. I just get tired of it. Not that Charles is wrong, just that its almost become like a fight in high school that the rest of us sit around and watch. When one of the participants in that fight is a complete moron, as apparently is the case with Ms. Loesch, it deteriorates rather quickly. Apparently her only beef with Charles is that he is a pervert. She has never substantiated that claim in any way but it doesn't stop her from using it in every tweet.

Dana Loesch, peer-reviewed studies have shown that you're an ignorant moron. This is the current scientific consensus. However some skeptics argue that the consensus is wrong and you're actually a moronic ignoramus. Developing...

From the sounds of the debate in question, it does not appear that women's lady business is under attack from progressives, on the contrary. The only threat against women's lady business appears to be coming squarely from the Conservative side.

This may seem kind of silly--but if you can't get a good external ultrasound of the fetus/embryo, then it is undoubtedly still within the window when abortion is allowed.

Yeah, but it's not what they want, which is to believe in their bullshit that forcing a woman to look at a grainy picture while a doctor points out what features he thinks he sees and plays a heartbeat will shame her into thinking about "murdering" her baby and choose to continue with the pregnancy.

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them, which I guess is somewhat true after years of pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

Yeah, but it's not what they want, which is to believe in their bullshit that forcing a woman to look at a grainy picture while a doctor points out what features he thinks he sees and plays a heartbeat will shame her into thinking about "murdering" her baby and choose to continue with the pregnancy.

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them, which I guess is somewhat true after years of pushing abstinence-only sex ed.

Although what they fail to realize is that if we women are as clueless as they seem to want to pretend, our likely response to an early pregnancy ultrasound image would be "Look how deformed it is! Kill it! Kill it now!"

Although what they fail to realize is that if we women are as clueless as they seem to want to pretend, our likely response to an early pregnancy ultrasound image would be "Look how deformed it is! Kill it! Kill it now!"

They seem to believe that women are such emotional creatures that, if the "reality" of their situation is forced upon them, they'll accept it rather than trying to "deny" it through abortion. Personally, I think it just them wanting to make an already difficult decision more traumatic, but they think that a small price to pay if their twisted moral superiority is assuaged.

The same goes for Calvin DeWitt, an environmental scientist who researches climate change at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. DeWitt is a vocal evangelical Christian and although he won't affiliate himself with a single party, he does admit his religious and cultural beliefs fall in line with the majority of Republicans. He has played a significant role in nearly every intersection of climate scientists with evangelicals and politicians, including the creation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative in 2006, a group of over 300 senior evangelical leaders who believe the nation needs to address global warming.

In recent years, however, DeWitt's efforts have been thwarted, he told InsideClimate News. "The times I've tried to reach out to politicians, I have not been welcome. I think the basic problem is that it no longer pays to talk with scientists, but to those who fund you."

Basically, they think women are too stupid to understand what is inside them....

Theirs seems to be a depressingly simple and twisted logic to follow... If they can prove that "Women = Stupid", and they know that "Stupid = Controllable", then "Women = Controllable".
And that's what it's all about - Control. Plenty of these cretins pine for their fantasy ''good ol'e days'', when Americans different than themselves had less/no rights (African-Americans and women). Since they wouldn't dare to try anytime soon with the former, they're now focusing on the latter, by any means they deem legitimate (as in anything they can get away with)...

Theirs seems to be a depressingly simple and twisted logic to follow... If they can prove that "Women = Stupid", and they know that "Stupid = Controllable", then "Women = Controllable".
And that's what it's all about - Control. Plenty of these cretins pine for their fantasy ''good ol'e days'', when Americans different than themselves had less/no rights (African-Americans and women). Since they wouldn't dare to try anytime soon with the former, they're now focusing on the latter, by any means they deem legitimate (as in anything they can get away with)...

Right on the nose. They'll never admit it, but that's exactly what this is about. And I refuse to be controlled, especially by the likes of them.

In recent years, however, DeWitt's efforts have been thwarted, he told InsideClimate News. "The times I've tried to reach out to politicians, I have not been welcome. I think the basic problem is that it no longer pays to talk with scientists, but to those who fund you."

That's what happens when the people you're trying to advise choose the almighty dollar and political power over doing what's right.

Speaking of generalized anger, I wonder which of the 4 tonight will try a nuclear option, given this is the last debate before Romney either makes or breaks it, and go whole-hog on topics like abortion, "Satan", Islam, etc.

we need a church lady font for tonight. "mr. santorum, what to do think is the biggest threat to the american way of life?" santorum: "Satan"

So will Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich show up tonight with ashes on their foreheads?

Nope. Newt didn't go to Church today, and if Frothy shows up with it on his forehead, it was put back on after they prepped him for the debates.

*snip*

"There is no regulation or even a suggestion regarding how long the ashes remain," according to Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, the executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Divine Worship.

*snip*

Receiving ashes is a symbolic gesture, said Hilgartner. He notes in different countries the ashes are distributed in different ways. In Italy, for example, ashes are sprinkled over the top of the head. Last year on Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI received his ashes sprinkled on the top of his head.

But then again, Frothy just might show up with the "ashes" on his forehead just to show how pious he is.

BTW, couldn't this be construed as the "mark of the Beast" in some Evangelical circles?

It would be a conversion if the dead were counted among the Mormons, but they aren't. Mormons believe that the baptism only opens an option to the dead, and whether they accept it or not depends on their choice.

Agreed. But invoking the MBF doesn't make it right. Only disrespectful.

It also doesn't change the fact that it's (very valid) satire of a very arcane and controversial Mormon rite that even the LDS leadership in SLC has had to back away from, due to its use on Jewish Holocaust victims and others over the years (including Simon Wiesenthal's parents earlier this year by "an individual member" of the church).

It would be a conversion if the dead were counted among the Mormons, but they aren't. Mormons believe that the baptism only opens an option to the dead, and whether they accept it or not depends on their choice.

They can accept the baptism after the fact if they want but they can't exercise the same option when it comes to the actual baptism. The point of the analogy is the arrogance of non-consensual action.

Some Mormon baptizes me after my death and I'll come back and haunt the bastard.

Sure, as long as this is not just a temper tantrum singling out a single weird religious ritual, while ignoring the fact that all religions contain fishy stuff.

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

It doesn't matter what other religions do. How common strange acts are certainly doesn't mean I have to accept them. Waiting until the person is dead and unable to say yeah or nay before performing a ritual possibly insulting had the victim been alive, is cowardly.

You may disagree with this ritual but there's nothing cowardly about it. They're not waiting for the death just because they're afraid to do it while (s)he is alive (in which case it would, indeed, be cowardly).

You may disagree with this ritual but there's nothing cowardly about it. They're not waiting for the death just because they're afraid to do it while (s)he is alive (in which case it would, indeed, be cowardly).

Then why do they wait until after death? Why not perform it before death?

temper tantrum is the wrong way to describe it. more as a "oh hi, you like to give people posthumous presents? so do we!" kind of thing

That's the temper tantrum. Obviously, this Mormon activity bothers whoever created this site for unknown reasons. In reality, if someone does any rite with any names, it affects nothing and changes nothing. So, meh.

No, really, many pray for all the dead. When someone dies, often people say "My prayers are with you". When people hear someone is hurt, they say they'll pray for them. It happens all the time. I really do feel Mormons get singled out because they're just slightly more obvious about it and they're the one of the non-mainstream religions in America.

Heh. Yeah. If someone really sincerely believes that this ritual is necessary to stop people from eternal punishment, they'd actually be assholes if they stopped doing it. By doing it, they're just being irrational and creepy.

It really is something they should stop just because it has become A Thing, though, and the Mormon Church in general agrees-- this is just being done by individuals inside it now.

But if you really sincerely believe in your religion, and that your religion is necessary for salvation-- as many faiths do-- then really being evangelical about it, and doing whatever magical tricks you can, is ethical behavior. It's irrational, but ethical.

They should minimize because they can afford it religiously - they don't actually think that if they don't post-mortem baptize everyone right now, all will be lost. They believe that this baptising work will continue after the second coming (or something like that). They still do it here because it's a commandment.

It's probably a mix of a lot of things that motivates missionaries, but I've certainly met missionaries who are, honestly, just full of love, and-- to my mind, sadly mistakenly-- think that spreading their faith is the best expression of that love. The religion in and of itself could be seen as arrogant, but the people themselves aren't necessarily so.

I do think it's funny that, given that I loathe the Mormon church's involvement in politics and am a hardcore atheist, I often wind up defending them. But just because their religion is more easily mockable doesn't make it more harmful or odious. I do think that the religions that believe everyone who isn't part of that religion is damned without any hope of salvation are much creepier and inspire a lot worse trains of thought.

Same here. I will openly call the Mormon hierarchy evil, but that doesn't project towards lay members. And the only reason it seems more mockable is because everybody is used to the absolute nonsense of the traditional religions. Seems inconsistent to me.

No, really, many pray for all the dead. When someone dies, often people say "My prayers are with you". When people hear someone is hurt, they say they'll pray for them. It happens all the time. I really do feel Mormons get singled out because they're just slightly more obvious about it and they're the one of the non-mainstream religions in America.

Prayer is a shared action, pretty much all religions use a form of communication with their god that can be described as prayer, so insult is not likely. However, baptism isn't as common leaving more room for insult.

I don't really care if it's done to me, I think it's all nonsense, but I do think there are people out there who believe very strongly that will find insult in receiving an unwanted rite.

It's the belief in the significance of the act that makes it real to some and more than just meaningless hand waving.

Some may be quite pleased about it. Good for them. Others may be quite upset, which in my mind, is enough of a reason to not do it in such a blanket manner.

Prayer is a shared action, pretty much all religions use a form of communication with their god that can be described as prayer, so insult is not likely. However, baptism isn't as common leaving more room for insult.

No clue what that's supposed to mean, sorry. Why does how common it is matter in the least?

I don't really care if it's done to me, I think it's all nonsense, but I do think there are people out there who believe very strongly that will find insult in receiving an unwanted rite.

Sure. Which is why the Mormon Church doesn't condone it.

It's the belief in the significance of the act that makes it real to some and more than just meaningless hand waving.

I'm sorry, I don't get that either. Because the Mormons believe that they're doing a very good thing by doing this, it's a bad thing?

Some may be quite pleased about it. Good for them. Others may be quite upset, which in my mind, is enough of a reason to not do it in such a blanket manner.

It's probably a mix of a lot of things that motivates missionaries, but I've certainly met missionaries who are, honestly, just full of love, and-- to my mind, sadly mistakenly-- think that spreading their faith is the best expression of that love. The religion in and of itself could be seen as arrogant, but the people themselves aren't necessarily so.

I wasn't talking about the individuals, they do believe they're doing what is right. The idea itself has an inherent arrogance. Three of my grandmother's brothers were missionaries to different parts of Africa, and they used to visit us and show us their pictures. This was back in the '60s, but I still remember thinking there was something weird about it even then.

I do think it's funny that, given that I loathe the Mormon church's involvement in politics and am a hardcore atheist, I often wind up defending them. But just because their religion is more easily mockable doesn't make it more harmful or odious. I do think that the religions that believe everyone who isn't part of that religion is damned without any hope of salvation are much creepier and inspire a lot worse trains of thought.

I try to be an equal opportunity religion hater. I just try not to hate the individual members.

No clue what that's supposed to mean, sorry. Why does how common it is matter in the least?

Simple numbers. If your religion uses prayer, then being prayed for isn't likely to upset you. If your religion does not use baptism then being baptized is going to look like non-consensual conversion.

If 90% of people belong to religions with prayer, praying for a random person has a 1 out of 10 chance of being considered insulting. If 70% of people belong to a religion where baptism is used, there is a 3 out of 10 chance if it being considered insulting.

It wasn't an appeal to popularity.

Sure. Which is why the Mormon Church doesn't condone it.

That's news to me.

I'm sorry, I don't get that either. Because the Mormons believe that they're doing a very good thing by doing this, it's a bad thing?

Not the Mormons, everybody else.

Wait, are you talking about the dead people?

Huh? The dead don't care, but people do care what may happen to their carcass/soul after they die, and for some reason relatives and friends of the deceased also care what happens after death.